Shooting at Mandalay Bay Resort (Las Vegas)

What a brilliant opening to Newsnight by Andrew Neil about the stupidity of gun ownership and lack of control in America

Since 1968 more Americans have died from being gunned down in America than any Americans losing their life in every war America have fought, frightening really.
 
The nasty word when debating the second amendment is "allegory" which is a position of interpretation. It is often used disingenuously as a way to give a veil of legitimacy to the person or side promoting the less reasonable opinion, an obfuscation tactic. Personally i despise it as in inhibits useful debate given the context of it's use.

Warning: Bit of my own personal ramblings below.

Amazingly with the people like our blue is debating with on twitter who replies with such nonsensical rubbish as "when it happened in the uk you did not ban cars did you" it is hard to work on a level you can both mutually recognize. It is very difficult to marshal your words to debate with someone like that partially due to them using tactics like above with allegory.

Then you are pushed back to reasoning, can i even reach and reason with this person on any level? Now when you think dogs, pigs, dolphin, gorillas all have documented cases of mutual understanding with humans where actions benefit both. I am not talking about symbiotic relations here but deep understanding on a an individual personal level, a random event etc. This makes me look at some of the "not listening, love my gun" brigade with disdain. Open your bastard eyes and let go of your pissing ego you sack of shit.Most are not like this however.
I loved shooting when in the USA but accept now that due to a few fucking loons it is something i can't really enjoy. If i were still there and it all got banned i would be gutted for about an hour then go make a burger or something.

Why can't other people be so reasoned and logical ffs, it is simple to me. Do these people not care for the greater good, for humanity as a whole?
 
Do you think an AR-16 is a useful tool for self defence in the home?
I'm sure you mean AR-15, and the answer to "useful" is yes. Is it the best tool? No. Shotgun is, by far, #1, with handgun #2.

There are plenty of alternatives to an AR-15, but you are being led by the nose here. It is all semantics and perceptions. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, just like a Glock handgun. The difference is a long barrel and ammunition size. Therein lies the big problem with legislation on guns. The Supreme Court has held that people have the right to defend their home and family with (a) gun(s), and the semi-automatic weapon is the standard gun of the late 20th and early 21st century.
 
I see Congress is considering legalising silencers - for reasons of ear protection - seems if they are allowed silencers they can blaze away at a range and not damage anyone's hearing.........I say just leave them to killing each other - they won't listen and they won't fucking learn.
 
What a silly reply. You know full well that you (as the gun owner) are more likely to die if you’re carrying than not:



So whilst you can point to one story here or one story there, the metadata suggests it’s simply not true on the whole.

I could tell you of all the times I’ve driven whilst over the limit and say I’m fine and I’m just better than the rest but you’d be right in thinking I’m talking bullocks and that the data would suggest I put myself and other road users at greater risk doing so.
I would say that there is so much more to the data than you bring to the table that we can't discuss it. Training, type of gun, storage, children in the home, where it is carried (if carried outside the home), etc, etc, etc... You don't know me or any of the above, so your assertion is...quite literally... bollocks! Metadata is just that...which makes it bollocks for specific conclusions, especially personal conclusions.
 
Not even the same ball game
You would be surprised, but then you don't live here and I'm not interested in doing your research.

Remember, this is a very PERSONAL decision for people, because it is THEIR LIFE under threat when it happens. We will have to agree to disagree, but please don't think that I'm all for everyone being Yosemite Sam!
 
Vile country populated by deluded gun toting brainwashed idiots. Sick of hearing about the fucking shit hole. Room 101 the fucker
 
Therein lies the big problem with legislation on guns. The Supreme Court has held that people have the right to defend their home and family with (a) gun(s), and the semi-automatic weapon is the standard gun of the late 20th and early 21st century.
And yet their legitimacy is governed by a law devised in the late eighteenth century. Therein lies another big problem with legislation on guns.
 
Its the law so it is legal for you to have a gun. It is not your right though. Only the constitution grants that and it clearly is not in the constitution.
You're kidding, right?
So what do you think the Second Amendment is an amendment to?
 
And yet their legitimacy is governed by a law devised in the late eighteenth century. Therein lies another big problem with legislation on guns.

Err, Magna Carta?

It may be amusing to denounce the foundational documents of a country that, in a few centuries, went from a revolutionary war to remove itself from under the boot of Britain to possibly the most powerful country in the world. However, many citizens of that country find almost any denunciation of America from someone from Britain as somewhat laughable.

None of that speaks to how I feel about the Constitution.
 
What a brilliant opening to Newsnight by Andrew Neil about the stupidity of gun ownership and lack of control in America

Since 1968 more Americans have died from being gunned down in America than any Americans losing their life in every war America have fought, frightening really.
Not sure that's right unless you count that American civil war as a war the Americans didn't fight 750 thousand WW1 116 thousand WW2 400 thousand Vietnam 58 thousand Korea 54 thousand plus other minor conflicts, that adds up to some gun murders since 1968, makes a good story though.
 
Not sure that's right unless you count that American civil war as a war the Americans didn't fight 750 thousand WW1 116 thousand WW2 400 thousand Vietnam 58 thousand Korea 54 thousand plus other minor conflicts, that adds up to some gun murders since 1968, makes a good story though.
Here's that good story for ya!

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...illed-guns-1968-all-u-s-wars-combined-n807156

Did you notice...NBC News, so per The Donald, it might be fake news! HAHAHAHA!
 
Maybe its right then proper seems unlikely to me but there you go, does that include suicides and accidents,I know there's a lot of gun related deaths in the US, but more than in all American conflicts seemed a bit implausible to me.
Yes. Almost universally these types of figures include suicides, police killing bad guys (or not), and individuals using a gun to kill someone intending to do them grievous bodily harm.
 
Here is a major part of the issue. Some turn to guns when you feel powerless. To often this goes well outside the scope of protecting your home from intruders. Now the fact they are so freely available makes any issue a possible deadly situation on a regular basis.

You hit a bout of depression, have a bottle of jack and pull the trigger. Your missus leaves you and you see her with her new man and your armed and have a moment of madness.

In the UK you may try swallowing pills and not die, you punch the shit out of the new fella but he is still alive and fine again in a week. Situations where if guns were not so readily available the outcome would not be death.

Couldn't agree with you more, mate. My friends (ages 40-50) who own guns are all sweet guys, family men, mostly from the midwest, grew up as outdoorsmen, a few are ex-military. But all of them are conservative, upper-middle class (at a minimum), have daughters and are worried about the potential for a home intrusion -- despite the fact that we live in one of the safest counties in America. Do I worry that any of them will slowly go nuts, or could reach for a weapon in a fit of rage? Absolutely not, and they would all characterize themselves as anally-responsible gun owners.

Here's the thing though . . . people change. It only takes an instant. But guns don't.

As I wrote elsewhere -- these fellows own guns because they don't trust others. But others are supposed to trust them when they say they are responsible gun owners. That line of "logic" makes no sense to me.
 
Couldn't agree with you more, mate. My friends (ages 40-50) who own guns are all sweet guys, family men, mostly from the midwest, grew up as outdoorsmen, a few are ex-military. But all of them are conservative, upper-middle class (at a minimum), have daughters and are worried about the potential for a home intrusion -- despite the fact that we live in one of the safest counties in America. Do I worry that any of them will slowly go nuts, or could reach for a weapon in a fit of rage? Absolutely not, and they would all characterize themselves as anally-responsible gun owners.

Here's the thing though . . . people change. It only takes an instant. But guns don't.

As I wrote elsewhere -- these fellows own guns because they don't trust others. But others are supposed to trust them when they say they are responsible gun owners. That line of "logic" makes no sense to me.
Do they carry? If not, then the weapon is secured at home and not readily available. Ergo, the trust issue is one of home invasion...and anyone who comes into my home without permission has no trust and deserves none.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top